Posted on 03/11/2005 6:32:41 PM PST by Sola Veritas
Rice pointedly declined to rule out running for president in 2008 on Friday during an hour-long interview with reporters at WASHINGTON TIMES, top sources tell DRUDGE. Rice gave her most detailed explanation of a 'mildly pro-choice' stance on abortion, she would not want the government 'forcing its views' on abortion... She explained that she is libertarian on the issue, adding: 'I have been concerned about a government role'... Developing late Friday for Saturday cycles... MORE...
Nothing makes me more spitting angry than the partial-birth abortion hoax. I debated a NOW Dr who tried to tell me it was necessary, but when I pressed her about the c-section option, the only answer she had for refusing that alternative was that c-sections are risky and scar. Unreal.
I still can't believe the levels to which they'll stoop in this debate.
On the other hand, I had a friend years ago, who had 3 little ones and got pregnant with her 4th. At her first neonatal visit, they found aggressive [cervical or ovarian] cancer. She refused to have even that early of an abortion. Her husband, a physician himself, and the rest of her family tried to convince her, but no.
She had the baby, then died within months, leaving him with 4 children under the age of 7. The resentment will never go away.
One of my best friends now has a very rare blood disease that causes severe clotting and frequent mini-strokes. She was told she was barren years ago, and has come close to dying many times over the last 2 years. She got pregnant, and is going to wait to see how she does, and only abort if she's on death's door.
That means the abortion, which is likely, will now be mid-term, and I find that to be horrendous.
Amen.
It reminds me of Granholm playing the Catholic card to try and be on both sides. Luckily we had a petition drive(that won) that told Granholm that her veto of the PBA ban had no effect. It's now in court.
That reminds me of the old Catholic saying...."You can't be Catholic and pro-choice!!!"
Granted at least Rice is against abortion funding and PBA, but the politicaspeak there certainly didn't gain any support from me.
I hope Rice stays at the State Dept.
The woman you describe is heroic, in my opinion. In the situation she was in, someone was going to die - her, or her baby. She chose that it be her. As Christ said, there is no greater love.
Thanks, but there's good to compensate the bad. I feel we're lucky to have our older daughter. The chances were against it. She's a little miracle and the world needs all those it can get.
Conservative first and always bump!
There were FReepers here insisting she was the same as W on abortion.
I have never heard W refer to pro-life as "the other side".
She is pro-choice...that's it.....and that makes her for abortion one way or another.
Frankly, I don't have anything other than this issue really against the lady but I cannot for a moment understand this fawning over her.....not for a moment.
Hell, Karen Hughes is more "political" if a woman is all they want.
That was my point, that the left applies the term "murder" to our actions in Iraq for many of the same reasons as the absolutists apply the term to abortion. Some day, I hope, it will once again be "murder" but today it is not and to use the term and and claim that that is the reason why it is morally unjustifiable is to make a circular argument, and not a very good one at that.
Thank You.
Republican Smoker...lol....I wish.
I can't do anything fun anymore..drats.
I reject your entire premise.
I don't think she really cares if "Dan from Michigan" supports her or not. She's not even a candidate for anything.
Yes,she is a little miracle and the world DOES need all of those they can get. :-)
Murder has at once both a legal and a moral meaning, in lay terms. To a lawyer, it has only a legal meaning. A legal killing is not murder, it is simply killing. Thus the confusion. Of course, the contestants in the public square, want to rope in the term for themselves, and conflate the technicalities. It has a nice ring to it. The battle over capturing the terms and words is fierce in the public square. With good reason. It sometimes tips the debate.
I think the most "establishment" choice is going to be George Allen. I'm seeing a lot more of him in the news.
He's my "third" choice as of now(behind Governors Sanford and Pawlenty), but I have no problems with him currently, and give him credit for sticking his neck out on those gun votes.
McCain would get run out extremely quickly in the next primary. Most republicans I know can't stand him, and that's not just the gun owners. They just don't trust him.
Good grief. Murder is a moral term; it means a killing that is unjustifiable. Where do you get the idea that it's a "legal construct"--only?
If you saw a video during the Communist reign in Russia of doctors going into orphanages that housed children of rape and incest, and they painfully drilled into the skull of a child sucking the life out of it, would you vow to stop that practice at all costs? God made human women to carry a child for nine months, it's a truth that is unavoidable.
Understand the issue.
Unlike McCain, if my daughter were raped (and I have two daughters) she would have no confusion about how precious that child would be to our family. The rapist, on the other hand, better get right with God quick, before I get my hands on him.
I think Sanford would win quite easily if he raises money. If Hillary's the opponent, he'll raise big money.
Sanford's pork stance will go over very well in bringing the "anti-spending" wing of the party along, as well as the populist wing.
You either stand for something or fall for anything.
Maybe it's just to throw some fear into the "Hillary for President" camp. If the Dems lose their African-American base, they will turn into pumpkins and we will have a liberal Republican party faction versus a Libertarian Republican party faction and the Democrats will go the way of the Whigs.
Then you and I violently disagree on the definition of heroism, priorities, and Motherly Love.
It is unforgivable to me. Even her Catholic family resent her for what her sanctimonious, and frankly political, choice did to them all - including 3 very small children who loved and needed their mommy very much. Now the child she had is looked at as the fault - it aint pretty.
"No greater love" should have extended to her 3 living babies more so than a single potential child.
'Mildly pro-choice'= Pro-abort.
I wouldn't vote for her.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.